I am not familiar with the original story but one thing stuck out to me while reading that.He refused a polygraph test.Now i don't get that at all.. why would an innocent person refuse one ?Worried about a false positive result maybe ?

The guy is a cop !He should be ready to take one of those tests any time about anything.

And i am not sure he has the grounds for a lawsuit either.Even an untrue accusation has to get investigated.. as an investigator he should realize that.

I wonder why someone watching a crime scene would simply go report that a cop threw away a booze bottle ?Simply because the person does not like Police ? Or that specific one ?They said in the story too a Bottle was tested for DNA and a sample was taken from him but did not prove anything..It is interesting though that someone reported that AND they actually found one on the scene to test.

So what do you people think ?You think he is guilty of drinking on the job and discarded a booze bottle at a crime scene ?

If you read the statement of claim filed with the court registry it explains much more than the article. It explains the timeline of what took place, the polygraph situation as well as what was reported to be an unreasonable delay in the investigation process (all as reported by the plaintiff - the officer). The Castanet story doesn't really paint the true story of what the claim alleges.

They absolutely sewered this poor man. A polygraph test can not be used in court... To prove guilt or innoncence, so why ever take one? I hope this cop wins his day in court, mismanagement and extremely piss poor treatment of our RCMP.

So he threw the bottle when he was about to put his jacket on the victim. But the bottle was found 25m from the victim. 25m is what, 80feet? If I take a couple of steps and hurl a baseball it might go 30m before it bounces. This just doesn't make sense to me. This was a set of tracks a lot of people use as a walkway. That bottle could have come from anyone any time before the murder. This sounds like it was a witch hunt by a boss or two who decided that they didn't like him.

I wouldn't hinge too much on the polygraph thing. With way those interviews are conducted and the way results can be interpreted, I wouldn't do one either.

All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Just to be clear: The opinions expressed above are mine and do not represent those of any other person, class of persons or organization.

KL3-Something wrote:So he threw the bottle when he was about to put his jacket on the victim. But the bottle was found 25m from the victim. 25m is what, 80feet? If I take a couple of steps and hurl a baseball it might go 30m before it bounces. This just doesn't make sense to me. This was a set of tracks a lot of people use as a walkway. That bottle could have come from anyone any time before the murder. This sounds like it was a witch hunt by a boss or two who decided that they didn't like him.

I wouldn't hinge too much on the polygraph thing. With way those interviews are conducted and the way results can be interpreted, I wouldn't do one either.

so by your statement should everyone no matter what refuse lie detectors ? has a result of a lie detector ever been used to convict anyone in canada ? and lastly if they are so unreliable why do police stations even have them ?

KL3-Something wrote:So he threw the bottle when he was about to put his jacket on the victim. But the bottle was found 25m from the victim. 25m is what, 80feet? If I take a couple of steps and hurl a baseball it might go 30m before it bounces. This just doesn't make sense to me. This was a set of tracks a lot of people use as a walkway. That bottle could have come from anyone any time before the murder. This sounds like it was a witch hunt by a boss or two who decided that they didn't like him.

I wouldn't hinge too much on the polygraph thing. With way those interviews are conducted and the way results can be interpreted, I wouldn't do one either.

so by your statement should everyone no matter what refuse lie detectors ? has a result of a lie detector ever been used to convict anyone in canada ? and lastly if they are so unreliable why do police stations even have them ?

Lie detector is an interrogation tactic. does not mean that they are admissible in court.He did not have council (because he did not realize at first he was under suspicion).This is why your lawyer tells you to shut up right from the start. If there is going to be any interrogation or lie detector tests, it should be on advice of lawyer.This officer was unfairly treated, but that is what investigators do. So I'm not sure he has much of a case. Except for the fact that he was obviously traumatized, but then so is most everyone who comes upon a murder scene. They still might be interrogated while traumatized. That's just how it's done.